Saying it was time to "reset" for a new era, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recommended shrinking American forces from 520,000 active duty troops to between 440,000 and 450,000.For video of the announcement click read more
If approved by Congress, the Pentagon move would reduce the army to its lowest manning levels since 1940, before the American military dramatically expanded after entering World War II.
The proposed 13 percent reduction in the army would be carried out by 2017, a senior defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity...
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
President Obama Proposes Deep Cuts to America’s Biggest Jobs Program
"The Pentagon plans to scale back the US Army by more than an eighth to its lowest level since before World War II, signaling a shift after more than a decade of ground wars."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Has to be done. Should have been done long ago.
Although, as your heading suggests, that only means more unemployed souls.
Put in 3, 4 years of service and get free health care for the rest of your life, probably hasn't helped control the enormous costs of maintaining a large armed forces.
When I served in 66-68 there were very few soldiers that were married unless you were in the upper ranks. Now it's common. That has to cost an enormous amount of money.
This country is broke. Has been for a long time.
Dopey Obama continues his fundamental transformation of America. I am convinced now that Obama wants to put as many people out of work as possible...make us dependent on the govt and divide us into warring ethnic or socio-economic factions. He is no f-ing good.
And btw, our population has almost tripled since WWII and he is going to reduce the size of the Army to pre-WWII levels?
He has doubled food stamps spending in five years?
Our spending on means tested welfare programs is equivalent to our giving every American $100,000on their 30th birthday which might be the smarter thing to do rather than have all these govt welfare programs.
Liberals actually believe that we spend more money on the military than we do entitlements. Not true.
AJ - I too am convinced Obama and his corruptocrats want Americans out of work. They want to turn us into a nation of beggars.
A spark of truth from the media. Look out- better send the FCC after this guy and shut him down for delivering untruths about dear leader.
At least when we spend money on the military, the soldier is being paid in return for his work.
When we spend money on means tested welfare, we are, in 85-90% of the cases, paying people for not working.
I'm not opposed to reducing military spending. We currently subsidize the defense of Europe and much of the rest of the world, and the current scope avoids all meaningful discussion of the appropriateness of projecting military force across the globe.
I just think it's odd that the first thing we can bring ourselves to cut is one of the few current services of the Federal government that's actually authorized in the Constitution.
It is a good start, but they'll need to cut back further than that.
I would hope that the cuts come primarily from the bureaucracy and not from combat forces, though.
Disarmament is an even older and holier grail than universal healthcare for the intellectual left, so the only wonder here is what took them so long.
But this is one hell of a time to announce it. I can't remember a time with so many places around the world getting set to explode at once.
Good article by Rich Lowry in the NY Post -- Defense: Wishing the world away -- with some historical perspective.
I'm with Calypso Facto. I don't oppose the reductions, but I do note that reductions are for active duty, and Obama also wants to reduce national guard force levels as well. I'm pretty sure Obama's playing the stupid game of, "you want cuts, how about I cut what you like?" His comments to the governors pretty much confirm this attitude, which is simply a piss poor way to govern.
I also wonder, now that the military is no longer sequestered from performing fly-overs for sporting events; how long before Obama disbands the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels in the interest of saving some bucks and being an asshole?
I can't remember a time with so many places around the world getting set to explode at once.
You must be in your twenties, then.
The United States has never been less threatened by foreign powers than it is now. The closest thing we face to a military threat is terrorism, and we fight that with spies and special forces, not with hundreds of thousands of ground forces.
I'm pretty sure Obama's playing the stupid game of, "you want cuts, how about I cut what you like?"
That would represent progress, actually, since for the last fifty years or so the bipartisan consensus has been "you want cuts? Nah, let's increase spending instead".
If Republicans aren't willing to make substantial cuts to military spending then Republicans aren't serious about balancing the budget.
The telemetry is open whenever a satellite is launched around the globe so that other nations can follow the proceedings and avoid misunderstandings as to just what is being launched.
And we also fight terrorists, or more partucularly their sponsors, with keeping a very powerful military, jus so that there won't be any "misunderstandings."
When you shrink the pool of regular army forces it necessarily affects the quality of your "special" forces.
When you shrink the pool of regular army forces it necessarily affects the quality of your "special" forces.
The Israeli and British special forces demonstrate the falsity of that statement.
The British and Israeli special forces exist under the umbrella of the United States military.
Come to think of it, so do their conventional forces.
and arguably, their civil societies as well.
The British and Israeli special forces exist under the umbrella of the United States military. Come to think of it, so do their conventional forces. and arguably, their civil societies as well.
All three of those statements are hilariously wrong.
Less jobs in the healing sector, more jobs in the killing industry!
So for the record, was Eisenhower or was he not a respectable leader and pubic servant, so far as conservative opinion would have it?
I think we should bring the boys home from Europe and Asia. Let those counties pay for their own defense. Or let China take them over.
Fuck them.
Lol. I meant to say public servant.
Obama is such a disaster for the country we may have to rely on FEMA to save us from his policies.
As DBQ would say - we are so screwed.
So for the record, was Eisenhower or was he not a respectable leader and pubic servant, so far as conservative opinion would have it?
If that's intended as a set-up for his military-industrial-complex remarks, you might want to read the whole speech. He also condemns government funding of research and public reliance on academic elites. And also touches on the foolishness of thinking that a big government program is the go-to solution for our problems. And on the foolishness of mortaging future generations to pay for present lifestyles, as our government has done for over half a century now.
Which it certainly serves as a refutation of the current defense budget, it works equally well as a refutation for the bulk of the federal government as it exists today, from global warming research to the war on drugs to Medicare and Obamacare.
Revenant: "if..." you are way too fair and kind to Ritmo.
As for Israel the whole fucking country's in the armed forces. That's what you call a rather large pool! And the Brits are basically window dressing.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Lol. I meant to say public servant.
Pubic savant <-- That was JFK
As for Israel the whole fucking country's in the armed forces. That's what you call a rather large pool!
That's what you call it if you can't do math, sure. Israel's active-duty military is 13% the size of ours and they field special forces comparable to our own (some say better, some say not). So obviously smaller military doesn't equate to lower-quality special forces.
And the Brits are basically window dressing.
Ah, I see I'm talking to somebody whose knowledge of world military forces comes entirely from action movies. :)
If Argentina attacks the Falklands again, the Falklanders are fucked, because Britain no longer has enough of a navy left to deploy military forces - special or otherwise - in the South Atlantic.
So yeah, as an international military force, the Brits are window dressing for Uncle Sam.
That would represent progress, actually, since for the last fifty years or so the bipartisan consensus has been "you want cuts? Nah, let's increase spending instead".
Um no. Actually the tactic I described is the first step in the status quo. The next step is both sides decide to mutually refrain from cutting spending, and then, as you say, spending is increased.
You have a point there.
This mornings Albuquerque Journal has front page article reassuring us that our entire congressional delegation is hard at work forestalling any cuts at New Mexico bases.
Post a Comment